Latest news with #chronology
The Independent
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Mea Culpa: It's about time
Chronology – that is, the matter of when things happened, or are going to happen – is often a nuisance to get right, and that's just the nature of the beast. Journalists are familiar with the difficulties of wrangling a complex sequence of events into an accurate and readable report, and normally they manage it quite well. There are certain trends, however, that we should definitely attempt to discourage, and one of these is the wrongful use of 'throughout'. In a fascinating article about the benefits of vitamin D, we wrote that 'omega 3 fatty acid supplementation did not have any significant effect on telomere length throughout follow-up'. I'm still not quite sure what a telomere is, but regardless, this doesn't really work: 'throughout' is an expansive term that means 'in every part of', and as such sits awkwardly beside a negative. It's a bit like saying 'I didn't like all of that programme': no one can tell if you mean that you only enjoyed some of it, or that you hated the whole thing. It feels like trying to go backwards and forwards at the same time. We said in another piece, about an actual programme: 'It was praised by critics, received 18 Emmy nominations throughout its six-season run, and is commonly held up as an example of television's golden age.' Again this was unclear, but for a slightly different reason. The word 'throughout' already suggests a profusion of something, in terms of either distribution or frequency, so if we try to use it in conjunction with a specific quantity, we create a conflict. In this case it's clear enough what we mean, but in a sentence such as 'Susan ate four puddings throughout the week', we don't know if that means she ate four every day for a week, or four in total. (Unless we know 'Susan', in which case the answer is a given. I digress.) The point is that the right word to use in each of these examples would have been 'during', which is a much more modest one and carries no notion of extent or frequency, only confirming that the thing(s) we describe took place within a certain period. The use of 'throughout' in its place can cause confusion, and it's time we through it out. Coming soon: I'm not talking about the imminent death of a national treasure: rather the launch on TV of his new documentary, which is already out in cinemas. It seems that David Attenborough is not just continuing to narrate superlative nature programmes, but is also alive and well – albeit we suggested, unintentionally, that this might not be for long. In an article last week we described the near-centenarian 'standing on a deserted beach in Dorset, white hair blowing sideways' as he reflects on 'his approaching mortality'. The usual word is 'encroaching', and there is a subtle difference: to encroach means to intrude, so the term refers to a person's growing awareness of the fact that they will not be here for ever. To talk about someone's 'approaching' mortality suggests that the end point is already in sight. Let's hope the great man has a few more years in him yet. The chips are down: We caused some bafflement in an interview with a Welsh actor this week, when we wrote: 'It goes without saying, then, that Rhys does a great Yank accent. So much so that it's a shock to hear him speak in the rolling consonants and round vowels of his birthplace when, on meeting him, he asks after a packet of crisps.' It's a strange term, 'ask after', with its curious preposition that has nothing to do with chronology. I'm not sure about its function in regional dialect, but in normal usage, it means to politely enquire about somebody's wellbeing, with perhaps just the slightest connotation that the enquirer doesn't necessarily care how they are (or didn't really ask). In other words, it's very English. In any event, no one asks after a packet of crisps in that sense, because crisps don't really come under the category of things one can reliably say are enjoying life, or a wee bit despondent, or going through an untidy divorce. The word we wanted was 'for'. There was another problem with this sentence, as some (all right, all) of you will have noticed already, which was the participle – in this instance, not so much dangling as firmly affixed to the wrong person. 'On meeting him' was replaced with 'on arriving for our interview'. Copy that: Talking of connotations, we used a peculiar word later on in the same piece when we quoted our subject describing an encounter with Anthony Hopkins: ''I remember he invited me into his trailer, and he gave me three rules to follow: be on time; know your lines; be bold, and greater gods will come to your aid,' Rhys says now in a gruff intimation of his hero.' To intimate means to hint or suggest, so I don't think we can have meant that. We changed it to 'imitation' as that seemed the most obvious solution. I know why the beige curd sings: We published a recipe for 'grilled halloumi and black honey' in which we described using charred aubergine skins to 'impart a rich, unique and smokey flavour'. I'm not entirely sure why we specify that the word 'smoky' should be spelt without the 'e' except when we are writing about the famous singer Smokey Robinson (real name William, who has been in the news himself this month, though the less said the better). But we are not alone: most publications seem to feel it makes sense to spell it differently depending on the context, and we second that emotion. Until next time.
The Hindu
24-05-2025
- Science
- The Hindu
Archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna refuses to revise findings on Keezhadi excavations
Archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna says he stands by his report on the excavations at the ancient site of Keezhadi in Sivaganga district. In his response to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which had requested that he rewrite and resubmit his report, Mr. Ramakrishna firmly defended his conclusions. 'The view expressed by you regarding further examination of the sequence is against the well-reasoned and conclusive findings of the excavation at the site,' he wrote in a letter to Hemasagar A. Naik, Director (Exploration and Excavation) at the ASI. Mr. Naik had cited suggestions made by two experts and asked Mr. Ramakrishna to revise his report by incorporating the necessary corrections, in order to proceed further. Chronology of the Keezhadi excavation According to Mr. Naik, the three chronological periods identified in the excavation require proper nomenclature or re-orientation. Additionally, the proposed time bracket for Period I (8th century BCE to 5th century BCE) requires more concrete justification. Mr. Ramakrishna, who led the Keezhadi excavation, clarified in his response that he had already accepted the suggested changes in nomenclature and had communicated them to the ASI in a letter dated April 10, 2023. 'The chronology of the Keezhadi excavation has been evaluated in accordance with standard archaeological procedures. The periodization of the site was reconstructed based on stratigraphic sequences, cultural deposits, material culture, and Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) dating obtained during the excavation,' said Mr. Ramakrishna, who submitted his report in January 2023. More than two and a half years later, the ASI has now asked him to resubmit the report to make it 'more authentic.' In his reply, Mr. Ramakrishna explained that the final conclusions presented in the report were based on detailed findings and were supported by comprehensive documentation. He stated that the chronological sequence of the Keezhadi site was clearly explained in the original report. Responding to the ASI's request for layer numbers to be marked for comparative consistency analysis, he said this would be done if any such data was found to be missing. Mr. Ramakrishna also emphasised that all relevant maps, plates, and drawings had been provided in high-resolution formats, both in soft and hard copies, to the ASI at the time of submission. 'Hence, there is no chance of anything being missing. However, if anything is found to be missing, it will be corrected,' he added.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
06-05-2025
- Business
- First Post
The long road to India-UK trade deal: ETP in 2021 to FTA in 2025
The UK on Tuesday agreed a free trade agreement with India, its biggest such deal since leaving the European Union, after negotiations relaunched in February following US tariff threats. read more Britain and India announced Tuesday that they have agreed on a long-stalled free trade agreement that will slash tariffs on Scotch whisky and scores of other products. The deal comes more than three years after negotiations started and stalled under a previous British government. Britain has sought to bolster trade ties across the world since it left the EU at the start of the decade, a need that strengthened after the United States unleashed tariffs that risk weaker economic growth. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Following is the chronology of the developments that led to the conclusion of the India-UK free trade agreement. May 4, 2021: Prime Minister Narendra Modi and (the then) UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson launched an 'Enhanced Trade Partnership' (ETP) to unleash the trade potential between the two economies. As part of the ETP, they agreed on a roadmap to negotiate a comprehensive and balanced FTA. Jan 13, 2022: Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal launched the Free Trade Agreement negotiations with the United Kingdom, along with the then UK Secretary of State for International Trade Anne-Marie Trevelyan in New Delhi. Both parties agreed to start the first round of negotiations on 17-28 January and hold future rounds of negotiations approximately every five weeks. Jan 2022 - Jan 2025: A total of 14 rounds of negotiations were held between officials of the two countries. March 2024: Negotiations were paused due to Indian general elections; both sides agreed to resume discussions post-election. February 2025: Goyal and UK Secretary of State for Business and Trade Jonathan Reynolds announced the resumption of negotiations. It was resumed after a gap of over eight months because of elections in Britain. Apr 28, 2025: Goyal visited London for the FTA talks with his UK counterpart, Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD May 2, 2025: Goyal again held discussions with Reynolds. May 6, 2025: India and the UK announced the conclusion of negotiations for FTA, along with the Double Contribution Convention pact. 'Today we have agreed a landmark deal with India – one of the fastest growing economies in the world, which will grow the economy and deliver for British people and business,' UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement. His Labour government added it is 'the biggest and most economically significant bilateral trade deal the UK has done since leaving the EU'. India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the deal as 'ambitious and mutually' beneficial. The pact will help 'catalyse trade, investment, growth, job creation, and innovation in both our economies', Modi said in a post on social media platform X. His office said in a statement the deal will 'unlock new potential for the two nations to jointly develop products and services for global markets'. It added that Modi had invited Starmer to visit India at an unspecified date. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With inputs from agencies
National Post
29-04-2025
- Business
- National Post
SINOVAC Board Issues Letter to Shareholders to Set the Record Straight on the Hostile Actions and False Claims by Vivo Capital
Article content BEIJING — Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (NASDAQ: SVA) (' SINOVAC ' or the ' Company '), a leading provider of biopharmaceutical products in China, today announced that its board of directors (the ' Board ') issued a public letter to shareholders in response to hostile actions and false claims by Vivo Capital and certain other parties (the 'Vivo group') against the legitimate and lawful actions of the Board. Article content Article content We are writing to set the record straight in response to the Vivo group's recent press releases, lawsuits and other actions against SINOVAC and the Board, particularly those related to the Board's decision to declare a cash dividend of US$55.00 per common share to SINOVAC shareholders. The Vivo group is now attempting to block the special dividend payments to you via lawsuits and by sending threatening letters and messages to the Company's stock transfer agent and board members. It is particularly concerning that the Vivo group is trying to prevent all SINOVAC common shareholders (who have received nothing over the past seven years) from receiving the special dividend even though the Vivo group have themselves already received over US$800 million in cash dividends from 2021-2024 from a majority owned subsidiary of SINOVAC. The driving motivation behind the Vivo group's hostile actions has been to 'double-dip' and receive even more dividends by claiming to be shareholders of SINOVAC, a claim that goes against court rulings 1. Article content Events leading up to this moment and precipitated by the Vivo group have followed a lengthy and complex chronology, which are summarized in the Addendum to this letter. Article content As you know, our shares have been halted from trading on NASDAQ since February 22, 2019. Despite the trading halt, the Company continued to operate and generate billions of dollars in profits without distributing any dividends to SINOVAC common shareholders. Also during this period, a number of unauthorized transactions and actions took place that primarily benefited the Vivo group, detailed below and in the Addendum. The Vivo group-controlled former board directly caused the NASDAQ trading halt, trapping your investment in our shares during the Covid-19 pandemic and ensuing years. The Board considers the special cash dividend to be an initial, corrective step in returning an appropriate share of distributions to the Company's common shareholders, to address the inequities of the past, from which the Vivo group has benefited for many years at your expense. Article content As you also know, on February 28, 2025, we announced that the rightfully elected Board was reconstituted and is actively governing the Company. This followed a judgment on January 16, 2025 (the 'Judgment') and an order issued on February 5, 2025 (the 'Order') by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the 'Privy Council') – the final court of appeal for UK overseas territories and the Crown dependencies which was made up of five UK Supreme Court justices – which handed 1Globe Capital ('1Globe'), SINOVAC's largest minority shareholder, a victory on all grounds, determining: Article content The slate of nominees proposed by certain minority shareholders and voted for by 1Globe Capital at the Company's 2018 Annual General Meeting (the 'AGM') were validly elected as directors of the Company. Article content The former Board ceded office on February 6, 2018 following the AGM. In the Privy Council's own words, 'The New Directors were therefore validly appointed and the Incumbent Directors have been imposters ever since'. Article content The poison pill adopted by former directors is void. Article content In its Judgment, the Privy Council recognized that, notwithstanding the possibility that some of the Board members validly elected at the 2018 AGM may no longer be willing or able to serve in their director capacity seven years later, the new Board is the only lawful Board of the Company. Based on the Judgment and Order, the new Board was reconstituted, adding new members to replace those who resigned, in accordance with Antiguan law. The Board is now led by a group of directors who are recognized and respected industry leaders with diverse backgrounds in healthcare, science, and finance. Article content Rather than accept the final, non-appealable Privy Council Judgment and Order, Vivo Capital has been blatantly interfering with the activation of the new Board and trying to undermine the Judgment and Order. The Vivo-controlled former Board similarly refused to accept their defeat at the 2018 AGM. Instead, they chose to launch lawsuits against a large number of SINOVAC shareholders who voted against them at the 2018 AGM. 1Globe used its own resources over the past seven years to defend against the poison pill (which unfairly targeted the shareholders who voted against the former Board) and ask the Antiguan court to settle the dispute regarding the Board election. Seven years later, Vivo Capital is at it again, trying to undermine the Privy Council's Judgment and Order by launching lawsuits against the Board that put the Company back in litigation. The Board has offered to engage with them to discuss their concerns, but the Vivo group has thus far refused to engage. Article content Vivo Capital has also erroneously claimed that the Company's former auditor, Grant Thornton Zhitong Certified Public Accountants LLP ('Grant Thornton'), who resigned on April 15, 2025, did so because of the new Board precipitating a corporate governance crisis in 2025. This is untrue and conflates the invalid actions of the Vivo-group-controlled former board, with appropriate actions taken and proposed to be taken in 2025 by the new Board, which are in the best interests of SINOVAC's rightful shareholders. Grant Thornton made it clear to the new Board that it had resigned because it could not rely on the former board's representations about the Company's financials in 2021, 2022, and 2023. In connection with its abrupt resignation, Grant Thornton also disclosed to the management and the Board that a material weakness and a significant deficiency in the Company's internal control over financial reporting existed as of December 31, 2023, none of which were disclosed to the Company after its audit of the Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2023. Article content These deficiencies occurred on the watch of the Vivo-controlled former board, who were excoriated in the Judgment, and are in no way related to the work of the new Board. We have recently added a qualified audit committee financial expert to our board to achieve NASDAQ compliance. Despite threats of interference from Vivo Capital, the new Board is focused on fulfilling its fiduciary duty with an unwavering commitment to correct the corporate governance issues of the past and formulate long-term growth strategies for the Company. The Board has responded to NASDAQ's questions and requests for information, with a view toward the continued listing of the Company's shares, the resumption of trading on NASDAQ, and the implementation of the announced special cash dividend plan. The Board expects to communicate further business updates in due course. Article content We intend to set a record date and payment date for the US$55.00 special cash dividend as soon as practicable. In addition, the Board intends to set aside funds for the special cash dividend for the private investment in public equity (the 'PIPE') shares. Vivo Capital started the lawsuit regarding the PIPE. The Board has no choice but to fulfill its fiduciary duty to you and the Company by pursuing the proper legal proceeding which is expected to conclude with the cancellation of the PIPE shares, at which point SINOVAC shareholders would be entitled to receive an additional US$11.00 per common share special cash dividend. Article content We are confident we will prevail, and we want to emphasize that we are urgently working to make things right as soon as possible to mitigate against further chaos and litigation, after what we have all endured over the last seven years. Article content We thank you for your continued support and confidence as we move forward together. Article content Sincerely, Article content The Board of Directors Article content Sinovac Biotech Ltd. Article content 2016-17: Vivo Capital led efforts to convince the SINOVAC management team and other investors to privatize SINOVAC at below the market price. The Vivo group's bid for the Company sparked competing offers and a battle for control of the Company with another competing buyout group. Article content March 2018: After the Company's February 6, 2018 AGM in which the slate of directors put forward by minority shareholders won the election, the Vivo group-controlled former board did not accept the result and used the Company's money to launch litigation and to use the poison pill to dilute shareholders who had voted against them. Note that one of those was SINOVAC's single largest shareholder (still a minority shareholder), 1Globe Capital, who used its own resources over the past seven years to defend against the poison pill (which unfairly targeted the shareholders who voted against the former Board) and asked the Antiguan court to settle the AGM election dispute. Article content July 2018: Recognizing their attempted privatization was unlikely to pass a shareholder vote, the Vivo group-controlled former board announced the cancellation of the privatization plan and issued 11.8 million common shares to the Vivo group through the PIPE Investment at below market price on the very same day. This is how the Vivo group purportedly became SINOVAC shareholders -in a transaction approved by the former board after they were voted out and had no authority to act on behalf of the Company. As the Judgment has detailed, they were ' imposters.' Moreover, contrary to the Vivo group's claims, SINOVAC was profitable and was not in need of the cash infusion from the PIPE Investment. Rather, the PIPE Investment was carried out primarily to ensure additional share support for the Vivo group-controlled former board while causing about 20% dilution of existing SINOVAC shareholders. Article content In connection with the PIPE Investment, the former board purportedly appointed Mr. Shan Fu, Managing Partner of Vivo Capital, as a director. Mr. Fu's appointment to the former board was invalid for two reasons: it violates Antiguan law since there was no vacancy on the board and, even if there was a vacancy on the board, the Judgment makes clear that the former board did not have the authority to fill such a vacancy. Following Mr. Fu's appointment, the Vivo group-controlled former board determined the invalid poison pill had been triggered and improperly issued highly dilutive exchange shares, resulting in the NASDAQ trading halt on February 22, 2019. Article content 2020: In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and the NASDAQ trading halt, the Vivo group proceeded to carry out a scheme to line their own pockets, at the expense of all valid shareholders of SINOVAC. In May 2020, they invested merely US$15 million in convertible debt for a then 15% stake in our wholly owned subsidiary, Sinovac Life Sciences Co. Ltd. ('SLS') – the operating entity primarily responsible for the CoronaVac® vaccine. The company did not need this US$15 million convertible debt. To demonstrate how egregiously unfair to other shareholders this action was, six months later another investor paid US$500 million for an equivalent 15% stake. Article content 2021-2024: Over the subsequent years, the Vivo group received over US$800 million in dividends from SLS. SINOVAC – the majority shareholder of SLS – and its shareholders received zero payment since the former Board did not distribute SINOVAC's pro rata share of such cash dividends to SINOVAC shareholders. At every turn, the Vivo group has prioritized their own enrichment at the expense of SINOVAC and its rightful shareholders. Article content 2025: Vivo Capital is taking legal action to attempt to stop the Board from paying SINOVAC shareholders the corrective special cash dividend of US$55.00 per common share announced in April 2025, unless it is paid to them as well. Vivo Capital filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York seeking, among others, to validate shares it received through the PIPE Investment and enjoin distributing the dividend to SINOVAC shareholders. This is concerning for two reasons: it clearly demonstrates that Vivo Capital is attempting to prevent valid shareholders of SINOVAC – who have had their investment in the Company frozen for six years because of the invalid poison pill adopted by the Vivo group-controlled former board, which resulted in the NASDAQ trading halt – from reaping the benefit of the April 2025 corrective special cash dividend. And it represents an obvious attempt by the Vivo group to 'double-dip' by receiving a portion of the corrective special cash dividend in addition to the over US$800 million in dividends from SLS it has already pocketed. Article content Article content Article content Article content Article content
Associated Press
04-02-2025
- Climate
- Associated Press
Trump picks former chief entangled in ‘Sharpiegate' to lead NOAA
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has nominated Neil Jacobs to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, turning to the man who was his acting NOAA chief in 2019 when Trump altered an expected hurricane impact map in what became known as the 'Sharpiegate' scandal. After Alabama meteorologists had contradicted an earlier Trump tweet warning of Alabama being in a storm's path, the Jacobs-led agency chastised them. That eventually drew criticism of Jacobs and his political higher-ups in a Department of Commerce inspector general's report on Sharpiegate. NOAA oversees the National Weather Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Ocean Service and other offices. Along with many other federal agencies, NOAA was targeted in Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for change in a second Trump administration. That document called to 'break up NOAA,' criticizing the agency as 'one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.' Jacobs is a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, where he has spearheaded efforts to combine different computer forecasting systems for weather and climate into a single system. He was chief atmospheric scientist at Panasonic Avionics Corporation and is a fellow at the American Meteorological Society. His appointment was first reported by Axios. In 2019, when Hurricane Dorian was bearing down on the U.S. East Coast, forecasters at the National Hurricane Center gave it a zero or minimal chance of hitting Alabama. But then-President Trump tweeted the state 'will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated.' Forecasters in Birmingham, Alabama, tweeted that 'Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian.' They said they didn't know about the president's tweet at the time and were responding to worried residents. Dorian never made landfall in the United States, skirting the coast of North Carolina, and had no major impact on Alabama, about 600 miles (965 kilometers) away. Three days after Dorian's landfall, President Trump displayed an earlier National Hurricane Center warning map that had been altered with a black marker to include Alabama in the potential path of the storm. The president is known for his use of Sharpies. Political back-and-forth went on for days, often in the early hours of the morning, according to the inspector general's report. That included one text at 1:08 a.m. that said the Commerce secretary wanted 'a chronology of who said what about Alabama from first briefing to the last,' followed by a 2:30 a.m. phone call to Jacobs that went unanswered. A Jacobs aide sent a 3:48 a.m. email with a chronology. Jacobs told the inspector general that 'things went crazy in the middle of the night' and that when he woke up to read all the messages his 'anxiety level went through the roof.' He said some of the suggested statements from his bosses 'doesn't sound like something I want my name on.' The next day, Jacobs' agency issued an unsigned statement saying the Birmingham weather office's statements 'were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time.' Days later, Jacobs went to a meteorologists convention in Alabama and, appearing almost in tears, thanked the criticized Birmingham forecasters, saying 'No one's job is under threat — not mine, not yours.' He later added: 'Weather should not be a partisan issue. I've known some of you for 25 years. I haven't changed. I'm the same Neil I was last Thursday,' referring to the day before the NOAA statement was issued. The Commerce Department's watchdog agency blasted agency and department leaders over Sharpiegate, saying they 'unnecessarily rebuked NWS forecasters for issuing a public safety message about Hurricane Dorian in response to public inquiries — that is, for doing their jobs.' A 2020 outside report from a group of academics was also critical of Jacobs over the incident. At the time, NOAA's acting chief scientist, Craig McLean, criticized the lack of discipline against Jacobs and his communications chief. 'While there may be found causes of sympathy for the oppressed and meek subordinates of domineering autocratic ogres, I hardly can find sympathy in this scintilla of an argument for clemency,' McLean wrote. 'If not the single highest person in NOAA, who will stand for the Scientific Integrity of the agency and the trust our public needs to invest in our scientific process and products?' Despite that history, Jacobs drew support last month from several weather professionals at the American Meteorological Society meeting in New Orleans. They told The Associated Press they hoped Trump would bring Jacobs back to lead NOAA, especially compared to some other rumored choices. 'I think the Neil Jacobs appointment is a strong pick,' Victor Gensini, a professor of meteorology at the Northern Illinois University said. Jacobs also attended the convention. In a session about his main project — the unified weather forecast system — he recounted to his fellow meteorologists how he had testified a few years earlier at a congressional hearing on a bill reauthorizing NOAA. Jacobs said then that there was bipartisan support for what the meteorologists were doing. 'All they did was say how awesome it is, how important weather forecasting is for the country,' Jacobs said. 'If you read the news and don't watch that (hearing) you wouldn't believe that ever happens in D.C.' ___
